There is an inverse relationship between the size of government and the competence of government.
If you disagree with the above statement, please explain why. Thank you.
size of government and the competence of government
There is an inverse relationship between the size of government and the competence of government.
If you disagree with the above statement, please explain why. Thank you.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
I don't disagree, either. But in my opinion, the competence and the size of government directly depend on the available technology. I'm not saying that you could create the perfect, omnipotent state with the help of the most advanced technology, it all has limits. But it works as a tool to help the government to fulfil the tasks which are necessary to exist (for example the monopoly on the use of force).
I think you could say:
a) The state needs a certain minimum of competence to justify its existence.
b) The larger a government (and the country/number of citizens) is, the more difficult it is to fulfil this minimum.
c) Technology improves the efficiency of the state and therefore allows a larger size.
The OP's statement is probably too simplified, since it depends very much on the circumstances.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
The larger the state the less efficient, comptence may exist in specific areas but not in others.
FixedOriginally Posted by Jimbean
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
The perfect example of what happens when you have 6 governments.
Effective government, even in Somalia.
Ein Volk...
People are great, systems are horrible and government employees loathe efficiency by nature.
By promoting that a government job is the last thing a upstanding productive citizen will engage in is the worst way to get the right people into government. In societies where it's a stain to enter government, only the incompetent and corrupt will enter government. Successful governments always seem to start off well, people are generally pushed into impossible situations and positions out of necessity, many of the civil servants do their job out of a feeling of community and service rather than greed or laziness. But eventually all the cynicism and lack of urgency push the competent into bartending, business or some other diversion.
Anyways, given the antipathy most people have towards civil service. It might be pragmatic to implement a civil(unarmed) service requirement for people of qualifying age and education. Say at 30-65, 1-2 year service duration. GED or college educated. Given the quality of average civil servants and their job security, it might be nice to get competent individuals at the DMV and put a bit of pressure on existing civil servants. I think the idea of life-long civil servants/government work as a career tends towards inefficiency.
My my, this explains the entirely non-corrupt, highly productive yet simultaneously massive governments in Latin America explicitly!
Congratulations on your hypothesis.
I'll get back to agreeing with Africans... http://www.sap4africa.net/news/price...-oil-discovery
Latin American governments are nothing like this, fundamentally no government has adopted this approach, they've tried by sending youth to the country-side but that's not what I'm proposing. The important thing isn't to push people into civil service, but rather to push some people out of civil service. Think of it as term limits for non-elected bureaucrats. Peaceful civilization doesn't need mandatory military duty, but modern bureaucracies require a involvement of its people within it's bureaucracy.
Anyways, implementation is far more important than any sort of big government, small government naive thinking, technology(and government is technology) is about implementation and execution once design patterns are matured. Regressive fantasy building and hasn't solved civilizations ills in the past and it won't solve it in the future, all civilizations fall, what matters is succession of that civilization, quality of life for the people of a civilization during it's existence and advancements that can be transferred to future civilizations.
Your example is exactly why those people need to be pushed out of government, but due to the fact that most people have no interest in governance. Corrupt individuals take the reins. The key is to make it that once these individuals are pushed out, their replacements can hold them accountable for their crimes. Fundamentally this sort of process cannot occur in a unstable violent society, but only in a stable peaceful democracy, so don't expect it to happen in developing countries anytime soon.
... So you believe that by picking random people you will increase the 'competence' of the government ...
Oh hkkmr.
This is a collectivist viewpoint. Since when has forcibly collectivizing people worked efficiently?
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
What's wrong with, say, the Nordic welfare state model? You are American and your culture is less homogeneous than a typical European country and I think your viewpoint is easy to relate if I think it like this. It's more safer to implement molds into populace if that populace isn't that varied.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
You don't have to exert force to collectivize, there is something called incentives. Not all collectivism is involuntary, democracy is a voluntary collective, but one which a individual may be born into involuntarily. We're all born into this world out of another individual's volition and not our own, does that make our birth somehow forced or wrong? However, the use of force has always been efficient(for some) or at the very least effective. The pyramids were built, the Great Walls, a great number of Empires were built on the backs of slaves, Roman, French, British, America. It is not only out of efficiency that these things were abolished but also out of justice, benevolence, compassion, ethics and morality.
What made this world the one we live in today, where so many people are not subject to the lash, the whims of aristocracy, the brutality of slavery. It is enlightenment, of philosophy, science, ethics, law and the technologies that were brought by this enlightenment, which include democratic forms of government. Naive ideas of good and bad based on size of government is mere sophistry and rhetoric, and do not adequately represent the world we live in and the advancements that have been made in society.
The past does not have a good guide for us to go towards a free and open society, only empire. Some people might even prefer empire but that's a very big government.
My view is that modern democracies are not simply collectives, but semi-autonomous voluntary distributed collectives. This is quite a bit different than totalitarian involuntary centralized collectives.
I am assuming that you are qualifying people in the private sector as well, since you did not say public. Simply having a public sector is also a form of forced collectivism since people do not choose to pay direct taxes (although in theory we could pay for it in indirect taxes).
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
How does a large, federated state like the U.S. find an equilibrium of scale? Any state for that matter? What information does it possibly have as to the demand for a certain scale? Elections? Threat of popular revolt? Expatriation?
The end is nigh
The goal can't be equilibrium, that's just stagnation. The goal of most civilizations is delaying collapse, which is a combination of many factors. Democracy is based in elections and political forces creating a system of checks and balances, however the purpose is still some kind of productivity/maintenance of life and experiencing the good and bad of life. IMO the US doesn't feel much urgency(nor is there really a need to) in it's collapse and those that do simply have a deer in headlights wait for the truck to hit them mentality, frankly, I think it will be many more years before that sense of urgency will be felt and before people will be willing to reform and/or revolt.
If there is a revolution within 100 years, it won't be pretty for the US or the rest of the world. There have been very few middle class revolutions, but it's possible in the US, and if there is a middle class revolution(more likely a counter-revolution) in the US it would likely be more like Franco's Spain, which may collapse into a new Republic. This might be the best case scenario for the US. Forming a Imperial state could be another option for the US but it'll probably be bad for everyone else.
Frankly, I don't see a solution for the US where regime change would result in a society which would satisfy a libertarian ideal.
I definitely think reform is possible but it will be due to a outside influence or outside conflict, the UK has been able to reform it's government without totally dismantling their society and I think the US have a similar opportunity to reform without dismantling.
Sometimes the government is inefficient but that's likely the best we can get to obtain a "performing" infrastructure without a lot of waste.
How can a process of market tatonnement be efficiently conducted in the case of, say, interstate highways? Companies will build 5 parallel highways and then 3 of them will close down?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You are referring to cases of market failures. Most cases of this can be dealt with by state (providential) or local government.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
Yes, I am. You will rarely find support for government intervention except in the case of market failures. But market failures are subject of debate: some people argue that having private motorways is indeed no market failure because (for example) cars pollute, consume resources, etc.
Others argue that private schools would be a market failure because an extensive education leads to better overall social and economic outcomes, and so on. So you can't just say "you are referring to market failures" to close the case.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The only way to substantiate any claim is with facts.
We can also apply the principle by Ludwig Von Mises that government have no price discovery mechanism and therefore cannot allocate resources efficiently.
Or that an external authority cannot maximize utility for a rational individual as well as the individual.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
His point was not exactly that; namely, a whole planned economy has no price discovery mechanism, but a government as part of a market economy indeed has a potential "price discovery" mechanism through the market itself. Surely it can distort this price mechanism, as much as a couple of "market failures" may do aswell.
Anyway, an easy way to substantiate your claim would be to assume the absence of economies of scale in government function, coupled with a constrained govt budget and a kind of marginal salary = marginal productivity general equilibrium condition. If that is the case, the "first" government employees will be the best paid and most productive, and a budgetary expansion will necessarily have to cater to less "able" workers. It's kind of heavily theoretical as an argument, I wouldn't bet my money on it, and it's only valid "ceteris paribus" so you won't be able to compare even very similar countries.
Exceptions also exist, there are natural monopolies (where big economies of scale and barriers to entry exist) which are somewhat better administered by politicians because at least they need to take into account their re-election, or more generally by a cooperative structure created by a union of citizens. "Government" is a bit too abstract. I'm a bit of a fan of regionalism, especially since the west *seems* for now to be a relatively war-free environment.
Another way to approach the topic would simply be to assume that there is a bounded and stable number of functions a government should perform. Each heterogeneous individual can perform a maximum number of functions, which varies according to ability (let's assume it's inborn), and needs to be provided with a minimum salary to live off, whatever its level of ability. The minimum salary acts as a fixed cost, thus for a given level of budget and "functions", there will be an inverse U-shaped relationship between the number of govt employees and total effectivness (basically a too low number can't perform all the functions but a too high number requires hiring marginally unskilled workers).
Finally, I'm pretty sure these topics have been explored to death in the economic litearture thus I advise you to look it up on google scholar.
Last edited by FDG; 04-15-2013 at 04:25 PM.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The government feigns incompetence while pursuing their own alternate agendas. I don't think a large government is necessarily incompetent. But an oversized one is different from a large one. The argument for small government is that personal freedom for action is maximized, and is more suited to the scenario. The problem with taking that to the extreme is free action can easily become mindless & without direction. A government is just systemization. On a very basic level there is nothing wrong with government. Everything a person does becomes systemized as it's perfected. To avoid this systemization to retain some mindless freedom can actually be detrimental and inefficient, as there are only so many scenarios one can encounter in life, and the same scenarios tend to pop up repeatedly... one arrives at an ideal course of action and that's integrated into the system. Whether this systemization is necessary really depends on whether the scenario is recurring and predictable enough to systemize, or whether it's better handled on an individual level.
The government we have is not a good example of what government can be. There are many underlying agendas which we are unaware of. The public politics like abortion and all this is a complete sham. That they are incompetent is a projection while under the surface they are totally competent for an alternate agenda. The alternate agenda isn't entirely selfish, it's somewhat noble though still convoluted, but the details of it are totally unrelatable to the average person. The real problem with our government is it's misguided. It's following an agenda which leads to failure.
Last edited by rat1; 04-15-2013 at 05:14 PM.
I'm pretty sure there are many big governments that are more effective then small government. Core efficiency in a government is the overhead and scalability of it's fundamental design. In all systems, bigger will mean more efficient until a certain point where it becomes less efficient due to resource shortage and contested access to limited resources. A government should ideally function in the sweet-spot of it's scalability based on its design rather than at it's low point or high point. Naturally governments reforms and adopts new technologies which increase scalability as it grows and shrinks, it will also encounter natural disasters, conflicts, attacks, and environmental changes which may reduce the resource pool and scalability.
I think Governments need to be properly sized for the design of the system, functional and effective rather than naive good/bad ideas about big/small. I consider any sort of big is good, small is bad rhetoric at best sophistry, at worst fraud(given the increase in the size of government due to small government proponents).
I'm pretty sure there are many big governments that are more effective then small government. Core competency in a government is scalability of it's fundamental design. In many systems, bigger means more efficient until a certain point where it becomes less efficient.
Anyways I'm pretty sure boosting IQ in the general population(as bad as a measure of intelligence it is) has a much higher chance of increasing wealth then almost any fantasies politicians will concoct to promote a ideological message.
Historically this is often not the case. Government expands easier than it can be reduced and often expanding beyond its fundamental design.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
So far governments have been fairly competent in their number one priority: Securing an area, whether national (policing) or foreign (invasion). However, I honestly don't know whether private sectors would do this better.
Public sector tendering?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
i'm too lazy to look it up but i'm pretty sure i've read about how the development of some complicated bureaucratic systems basically looked like "let's make a council which will decide things", "oh we need MORE representatives to satisfy X, Y and Z fractions", "oh it's so big it's useless we need a smaller council which will actually work", repeated however many times. so from this pov the OP's statement appears right on as far as effectiveness goes, except "competence" is more than just that, or at least there's more than that to a government - for example, if it exists at all, it should have at least minimum redundancy, so taking out one person won't break the whole thing. for very small values the relationship might look differently but in general, yeah.
@Ashton: division by zero?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote